Fat Camp: Undervalued roles - the Move TE

Ted BartlettMay 25, 2012 3:00 PM

Depending on who you ask, there are 4-5 different “premium positions” in the NFL. Everybody would agree that Quarterback is on the list, and most would say Left Tackle and Right-side Pass Rusher. Many people say Cornerback, and I would say Run-Stuffing Defensive Tackle is premium as well. What makes those premium positions, though? Have you ever thought about that?

I would say that the primary reason those positions are held in such high regard is that the athletic skill sets which are required to be an elite player at them are difficult to find. It’s a function of resource scarcity, and not necessarily of on-field importance, in other words.

If I want to run a Cover-2 scheme, I don’t need CBs with elite man-to-man coverage ability, so I wouldn’t place a premium on those skills. If I always have the lead in games, maybe I care a bit less about stopping the run. The last six Super Bowls have been won by teams with below-average LTs (Marvel Smith, Tarik Glenn, David Diehl, Max Starks, Jermon Bushrod, Chad Clifton, and Diehl again). The evidence would indicate that you don’t necessarily need a great player at that position.

I’ve decided to write a few articles about non-premium positions, or more accurately - roles on a football team - where significant competitive advantage can be generated by the acquisition and development of quality players. What I mean in distinguishing “role” from “position” is that with the schematic variation across the NFL, the concept of position is getting to be kind of outdated and misleading. For example, an even-front OLB is much, much different from an odd-front OLB. Calling them both OLBs does neither justice, because we're talking about apples and oranges.

Today, we’re going to start by looking at Move Tight Ends. Sometimes, these players are called H-Backs, but I don’t really like that term. I had occasion to listen to Joe Gibbs a couple mornings ago on the Opening Drive on Sirius XM Radio, and he talked about how he came to love multiple TEs, and that Kellen Winslow was really the first Move TE, when Gibbs was the Offensive Coordinator of the Chargers in 1979 and 1980.

When Gibbs went to the Redskins, he used a Move TE there too, but more as a blocker. The term H-back actually came from the idea that he wanted to move a TE into position to help block Lawrence Taylor wherever he was in the defensive alignment. The classic Redskins H-Back was Clint Didier, who was 6-5, 240 pounds (big for a TE then), and who only caught 141 passes in 105 career games. He went on to run for US Senate in Washington in 2010, as a radical Tea Party type, and he got 13% of the vote in the blanket primary, finishing a distant third.

Didier was a blocker, as were other Redskins H-backs, and today, you always hear the big WR type called an H-Back, and I just find it to be historically inaccurate. Thus, I use the term Move TE, which I distinguish from an Inline TE. The Inline TE tends to line up on the line of scrimmage with his hand on the ground, next to an Offensive Tackle. The Move TE is usually in the backfield, and can stand up, put his hand on the ground, or go in motion. He can be deployed wide, tight, in the slot, or as a FB. In short, he gives you a lot of flexibility.

Have you ever heard the term “Pro-Style Offense”? I think it’s kind of a stupid term that doesn’t mean anything real. It historically means that the primary personnel grouping consists of 2 RB, 2 WR, and 1 TE, what we call 21 personnel. That was distinguished from a lot of college programs that were still using the Wishbone and other three-back schemes. Now, it seems to mean “not a variation of a spread offense.” Even that’s getting inaccurate in the NFL, though, as teams smartly incorporate aspects of college spread schemes.

In the course of doing my Digesting series last fall, it became clear that a lot of teams tend to always use 1 RB, 1 TE, and 2 WR, with the fifth eligible player sometimes being a TE, RB, or WR, depending on the situation. I’m a big believer in doing away with the traditional FB and heavily incorporating the second TE.

The best thing about using two-TE personnel is that it forces a defense to decide if they want to try to defend you with their Base defense (four DBs), or a Nickel defense (five DBs). If it’s Base, the offense should have an advantage in throwing the ball, because that Move TE is usually going to be able to beat a LB trying to cover him. If it’s Nickel (Big or Small), the offense should be able to run the ball well, because that Move TE should be able to block the extra DB on the field.

The value of Tight Ends is that they’re useful players in both the passing and running games. Very few are great blockers, and it’s actually a lot harder to find a skilled blocker than a skilled receiver at the position. Most are passable blockers, though, and in a well-conceived running scheme, you can get the lesser blockers onto the specific defenders who they’re most able to handle.

The Patriots have both the best Inline TE (Rob Gronkowski) and the best Move TE (Aaron Hernandez) in the NFL, and they stole both players in the 2010 Draft. Gronkowski was a second-rounder because he missed his last year at Arizona with a back injury. Hernandez was a fourth-rounder because he failed a couple of tests for marijuana. On film, both were mid-first-rounders that year, so nobody should have been surprised at their success.

When the Patriots use 12 personnel, with, say, Danny Woodhead, Gronkowski, Hernandez, Wes Welker, and Brandon Lloyd on the field, that’s going to be a complete nightmare for defenses. The addition of Lloyd, to keep the CB on his side honest, makes me wonder if this grouping can even be contained. Teams should be seeing the stress that a group like that places on defenses, and trying to emulate it.

Other good Move TEs in the NFL are Fred Davis, Dustin Keller, and the Broncos’ Jacob Tamme. I think the Seahawks stole Kellen Winslow II from the Bucs for next to nothing, and that he’ll pair very nicely with Zach Miller. (I’ve really liked Seattle’s offseason, while most football talkers have questioned it.)

To give you an idea of what a good Move TE can do for a team schematically, I’ve created a few diagrams. First, here’s a look at the most basic 12 personnel formation. (In these diagrams, the Inline TE will be “Y”, and the Move TE will be “TE.”)

The formation has no strength, and the defense has to play straight up. Since we’re seeing Base defense here (four DL, three LB), we know we have a great look in the passing game, but we can also run a stretch-boot play either direction, and get seven blockers on six defenders, with the backside edge guy having to stay home on the bootleg.

Now, here’s a minor tweak, with the X receiver moving up to the line of scrimmage and the Move TE aligning tight in the backfield. By virtue of being off the line of scrimmage, he can go in motion, so while there’s no formational strength in this diagram, one can be created during the QB’s pre-snap process, with the Move TE motioning to align outside the Inline TE.

Does the defense shift to match the newly created strength, or not? The answer to that question can lead to the selection of the ultimate play, if the offense is in something packaged. (By that, I mean there’s a run play, a pass play, and a bubble screen all built in, depending on what the defense calls.)

Finally, with the Move TE in the slot, the defense faces a problem. Does the WLB move out into space to cover him? That leaves a six-man box to run against, and a coverage player who probably isn’t the greatest in space. Does the FS drop down into the slot to take him, and leave the SS as a single-high Safety? Does the defense keep their Cover-2 shell alignment, thereby signaling that they’re playing a zone?

A good Move TE can add a lot of versatility to an offense and put a lot of stress on a defense. If I were an NFL Offensive Coordinator, the first thing I’d do is ask the GM to get rid of anybody who resembles a FB and to go find me somebody who can play the Move TE role in my offense. Out with the limited-use parts, and in with those which are very useful.

Side Note - As for the acquisition of Chris Gronkowksi, I expect it to have somewhere between little and no impact on the 2012 Broncos. The offense I think they'll use never employs a FB, and unless middle Gronk is a hell of a special teams contributor, I'd be surprised if he makes the team.

1. I’m not in the arguing business, I’m in the saying what I think business.
2. I get my information from my eyes.

Interesting stuff. I just got back from vacation to read this, so I haven't had time to look into whether the: Giants, Packers, Steelers, Saints, or Colts had exceptional move TE's on their teams when they won the Super Bowl. I really don't care about the Patsies...they haven't been able to win the big show since 2005. In fact, I think their window of opportunity is closing quickly, unless Belichik can figure out how to steal film on the opposition.

Posted by John Tomasik on 2012-05-28 22:36:20

Technically when and end comes off LOS and a back steps on it, they have traded places. The End has become a Back and the Back has become an End. It's a shift and each formation has names for each eligible player.

Shifts and motion indicate how to line up and how to change. X and Y are Ends and Z is one of the Backs.

Posted by samparnell on 2012-05-26 21:27:22

But ends may back off the line of scrimmage and a back or receiver step into it, now the end can go in motion (thought technically he is no longer an end, and changes his position name in the progress of the play - technically; but he's still the team's TE).

Posted by ivanthenotsobad on 2012-05-26 20:35:02

Okay, I think this has gone far enough. This started just as a friendly little swipe at ol' Ted, whom I have admired and followed for some time now, and it was done totally on the side in a post that I think was otherwise quite interesting, even if I did write it.

It doesn't make any difference to me whether Ted or anyone else here is far right or far left or anywhere in between. This is a football blog. Most of us are Broncos fans. That's all that matters here, IMO.

Posted by AZDynamics on 2012-05-26 18:29:19

Nice! Still looking forward to the next installment on the manning offense!

Posted by Logan on 2012-05-26 17:04:50

I'd go even stronger than c_style on this Vaughn was a numbers casualty. At least we got something for him rather than nothing. 'Gronk' may only be a TC temp who helps us get through camp but it was still a role that needed to be filled.

I prefer to see the trade in a positive light despite its somewhat inconsequentual nature. Judie might be the sixth CB. And that still leaves Squid on the outside looking in. At worst, we've speeded up the inevitable. I like Vaugn but the numbers are ruthless and inflexible.

Posted by colinski2 on 2012-05-26 14:41:43

An End is on the end of the LOS. A Back is off. Ends may not motion. Backs may. So it has been for over a century.

Posted by samparnell on 2012-05-26 13:44:30

Pub, do you mean 'far left' as in far left of center, or far to the left of Faux News? I'd bet a C note that Ted falls in the centralist area of the Nolan chart. Most realists do. As for myself, even though I'm liberal on social issues and think the right wing media is absolutely full of shit, the Nolan quiz I took put me centralist (which didn't surprise me) with slight conservative leaning (which did). Attempting to insult a centralist by calling them a liberal is every bit as silly and juvenile as calling a straight man a fag.

Posted by A R on 2012-05-26 10:30:19

Vaughn most likely wasn't making the final roster either.

Posted by c_style on 2012-05-26 08:38:18

At first, I thought acquiring a fullback was pointless, too, because like you said, they'll never use one in a Peyton Manning-led offense. When it's 3-and-goal from the 1-yard line though, I could see them sending in a fullback for an eye formation if play is stopped between 2nd and 3rd down (timeout/injury, etc).

Agree? Or do you think they'd simply run single RB run or a pass play?

And oh, good read.

Posted by Jon on 2012-05-25 22:33:35

edited by me. never mind.

Posted by Orange_and_Blue on 2012-05-25 20:32:57

No worries, brother. Thanks for reading and commenting.

Posted by Ted Bartlett on 2012-05-25 19:09:12

Ted,Your mention of the evolution of football and the terms used struck a cord.

When I started playing HS football (1956) we had 1 QB, 1 RHB, 1 LHB, 1 FB and 2 TEs. Everybody did.The only thing that looks anywhere near that now is the 1 QB (does anyone know the origin of the term 'Quarterback').We've added WRs and RBs and HBs to the terminology to reflect some of the changes.

And, as you indicate, even those terms are no longer reflective of the roles of the players so named.We could just as well drop the T from TE since Es are not always tight; in addition, the actual E is often one of the so-called WRs.In addition, WRs are sometimes not so wide, but are 'Slot' Receivers.Your use of 'Move TE' is better, I agree, than 'HB' ("Humpback?"), but he is often not an end once the ball is snapped, even if he was out of the huddle.

More and more, all 6 of the players who are not designated as OL, interchange roles, the QB the least so.All are eligible to touch the ball, all but the QB will sometimes play from the end of the line, and all increasingly should have noticiable skills at catching the football, running with the football once the have it, and block whenever important to the play.The QB is unique in that he, more than the others, must have passing skills, recognition skills, and management skills. But it doesn't hurt if he can also run, catch and block.

Now, agreeing on the best terms for these 6 players is probably a task for several generation of football fans.How about:I - for Initiator - first to touch the ball after the snap;R - for runner - most likely to line up behind the I to start the play and run after receiving a hand-off;C - for catcher - the other four who will have a variety of skills sets and even then often be used pretty interchangably. You might want to distinguish between SC (Slot-Catcher), WC (Wide-Catcher), BC (Big or Blocking Catcher), CC (Control Catcher), DC (Deep Catcher), etc.Would be slightly more appropriate for today. Probably won't catch on.

Posted by ivanthenotsobad on 2012-05-25 18:45:19

Ah, I was only ribbing a friend . . .

Posted by AZDynamics on 2012-05-25 17:40:28

AZ, The far left always wear their politics like a boil, "Look! Look! Look! No, don't touch it!" It's what makes them the "good" people.

Posted by pubkeeper on 2012-05-25 17:30:31

Ted, that was a tongue-in-cheek comment. I'm sorry that was the only part of my comment that stood out to you.

Posted by AZDynamics on 2012-05-25 16:56:24

Everybody has an idea of what my political orientation is. It's not something I'm particularly secretive about.

Posted by Ted Bartlett on 2012-05-25 16:54:06

Well, Ted, I got an idea of what your political orientation is. Anyway, nice piece on the Move TE. I think Denver actually had something similar before in Steve Sewell. The difference is talent: There is nobody I see today that has the "H-Back" type of talent Sewell did. He could move in to TE or out to WR. He could stay in and block, or turn into FB for the RB, or even run it himself -- and he terrorized defenses when he did that. I heard time and again back then how the DC commented on how they had to know at all times where Sewell was.

But, alas, the Broncos have no one with that flexibility today. However, they do have a group of TEs that should give defenses fits, primarily with Tamme, Dreessen, and Julius Thomas, the latter whom I expect to break out in a big way when he gets healthy -- and if he can stay that way.

Posted by AZDynamics on 2012-05-25 16:49:25

Great work as always Ted.

Posted by wisco on 2012-05-25 16:49:22

It does seem like we just gave him away.

Posted by Paco alonzo on 2012-05-25 16:44:57

Thanks, T-Bar. As always great stuff. What are your thoughts on trading Vaughn for someone who may not make the team? Simply to dump Vaughn and get a look at someone they might have an idea for a specific use?

Posted by Sino Kochevar on 2012-05-25 16:22:34

Nice eval Ted. So you think they traded away Vaughn for nothing if Gronkowski doesn't even make the team?